I'm not really saying anything is wide of the mark, but simply making X + Y = Z judgements is bound to be misleading. For instance, simply because there have been some successful attacks recently doesn't necessarily mean the risk has gone up, or that some new cell has come to play. It might just mean that they got lucky this week. The fact that there have been successful attacks doesn't necessarily mean the insurgents are going to get more bold. In fact, odds are most of them don't even know what happened. Chances are he average insurgent has zero idea how big the NZ PRT is and couldn't tell the difference between a NZ soldier and a US soldier if you payed them. As I said, making judgements from NZ (or here in Australia) without the info is bound to be misleading.
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
Yeah ok but I'd have to say I disagree - and I don't think I'm making wild assumptions. I think it's quite clear the insurgent groups are for more organised that what many of us ever first thought – a legacy of so many years fighting the Soviets perhaps!
As regards to them just getting lucky - recent press releases have acknowledged there is a new, very proficient bomb-making group, presumed to be from the south, that are operating in the area now. NZDF have been aware of their presence and have been tracking them for some weeks.
The links below are to 2 articles which show that the Taliban do their homework & know the value of waging a propaganda war. In this case it’s clear they are actively studying the composition & operations of our PRT, no doubt with a view to exploiting any weakness they find – but that’s old news to the NZDF. What’s concerning is the increasingly threat levels in that area.
Taleban: More NZ blood will spill - Defence - NZ Herald News
Coleman: Taleban wants to unsettle us - Defence - NZ Herald News
And whilst I know NZDF did request some vehicles from the US 2 years ago, they were understandably not available in-theatre. However this highlights my point that 2 years has passed since a need for those vehicles was identified - and here we are now with still no project to purchase any. We should by now at least have an urgent order with a supplier for a dozen or so suitable vehicles for the PRT.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/defence/news/article.cfm?c_id=32&objectid=10828582
Good question - I'll take a look next time I'm in there - not sure when that'll be though. Remember of course the museum only lists those from the Auckland 'province' and I'm not sure where our 10 Afghanistan casualties came from.
Firstly, a bit of context and background.
The use of IED's are considered by most security specialists to be an ever more likely approach undertaken by non-state belligerants. Thus it will be a key modus operandi of attack that will spread beyond the current geography of the middle east and central asia. In the future any location that civil society has broken down has the potential to see one or more belligerant parties attempt to use IED's (or god forbid VBIED's).
Thus the NZDF will have to be prepared and equiped to counter the possible use of IED's even within our own Pacific centric area of operational interest. We must not delude ourselves that since our work in A/Stan is nearly complete that we won't again meet an IED threat past April 2013. Though 20kg device detonated in Northern Banyam would no doubt destroy any NZLAV, it does not mean that survivability will always be hopeless. Smaller and more unsophisticated devices will remain a potential threat and in growing numbers and indeed will be survivable. Therefore we should recognise the need to counter such threats.
For this we will need to do two things: 1. Continue to look at new technologies of detection and avoidance and 2. Have increased numbers of protected vehicles to at least STAGNAG 4569 Level 2 or preferably Level 3 survivability available within the NZ Army.
At present the NZ Army operates 60 "Armoured" Pinzgauers - these vehicles fell substantially short with respect to Mine / IED survivability under British operation. However, I do see a useful "policing" role for some of them such as the armoured C2 version and the armoured CSWC's do offer greater small arms protection that the soft skinned versions, nevertheless we need to have the subset capability of a more robust light infantry protection vehicle that bridges the NZLAV and the Pinzers.
Nonetheless, we also have limitations in terms of personnel and operating budgets therefore any additional vehicles to our current numbers of LAV's and Pinzers would not be realistic. As CadreDave pointed out originally cost reasons ruled its big red line through the acquisition of Bushmasters sometime back - albeit before the tragedies of recent times. However, lesson learned and post-factum evaluations of events whether they be cost centric or doctrine centric driven can mean changes can (should) happen.
The upshot of all this is that of the 321 Pinzers currently on the NZ Army books which variant would best see substantial numbers removed from the Army Orbat and either replaced, sold, converted, transfered or stored?
Would it be better that half of the current 68 soft skinned CSWC versions of the Pinzer be replaced with around 34 of the more robust Bushmasters - enough for 2 Squadrons?
Regards MrC
The use of IED's are considered by most security specialists to be an ever more likely approach undertaken by non-state belligerants. Thus it will be a key modus operandi of attack that will spread beyond the current geography of the middle east and central asia. In the future any location that civil society has broken down has the potential to see one or more belligerant parties attempt to use IED's (or god forbid VBIED's).
Thus the NZDF will have to be prepared and equiped to counter the possible use of IED's even within our own Pacific centric area of operational interest. We must not delude ourselves that since our work in A/Stan is nearly complete that we won't again meet an IED threat past April 2013. Though 20kg device detonated in Northern Banyam would no doubt destroy any NZLAV, it does not mean that survivability will always be hopeless. Smaller and more unsophisticated devices will remain a potential threat and in growing numbers and indeed will be survivable. Therefore we should recognise the need to counter such threats.
For this we will need to do two things: 1. Continue to look at new technologies of detection and avoidance and 2. Have increased numbers of protected vehicles to at least STAGNAG 4569 Level 2 or preferably Level 3 survivability available within the NZ Army.
At present the NZ Army operates 60 "Armoured" Pinzgauers - these vehicles fell substantially short with respect to Mine / IED survivability under British operation. However, I do see a useful "policing" role for some of them such as the armoured C2 version and the armoured CSWC's do offer greater small arms protection that the soft skinned versions, nevertheless we need to have the subset capability of a more robust light infantry protection vehicle that bridges the NZLAV and the Pinzers.
Nonetheless, we also have limitations in terms of personnel and operating budgets therefore any additional vehicles to our current numbers of LAV's and Pinzers would not be realistic. As CadreDave pointed out originally cost reasons ruled its big red line through the acquisition of Bushmasters sometime back - albeit before the tragedies of recent times. However, lesson learned and post-factum evaluations of events whether they be cost centric or doctrine centric driven can mean changes can (should) happen.
The upshot of all this is that of the 321 Pinzers currently on the NZ Army books which variant would best see substantial numbers removed from the Army Orbat and either replaced, sold, converted, transfered or stored?
Would it be better that half of the current 68 soft skinned CSWC versions of the Pinzer be replaced with around 34 of the more robust Bushmasters - enough for 2 Squadrons?
Regards MrC
Last edited:
I can't see why New Zealand hasn't grabbed a few Bushmasters even if its just short term loan. There are more than enough being pumped out just to keep the plant open until the Hawkei comes along.
They have taken some very big hits and are designed for the Ozzie outback so handling isn't a problem.
And if there are worries about maintanence, the Aust Govt wouldn't really take much convincing to deploy a small team to help keep them running. ANZAC Spirit and all that good stuff.
As has been pointed out, they could be available by the end of the week. Having your own C17s comes in handy.
They have taken some very big hits and are designed for the Ozzie outback so handling isn't a problem.
And if there are worries about maintanence, the Aust Govt wouldn't really take much convincing to deploy a small team to help keep them running. ANZAC Spirit and all that good stuff.
As has been pointed out, they could be available by the end of the week. Having your own C17s comes in handy.
Budget as explained many times before, to fund Bushmaster requires Army to drop funding somewhere else, regardless if it is a short term loan, these vehicles will add another level of cost for VM, driver trg, crew commanding, etc.
NZ Army is well aware that they have good survival attributes, but the outback shares nothing in common with our province in Bamyan, the closest to Bamyan is the southern alps in our South Island.
We can take care of what we already have, adding the bushy to our inventory would be the straw that would break the camels back.
I'll explain further why the decision to not send the boys back has got nothing to do with John Key:
1. For the last 18 months the SAS has rotated one troop thru Kabul every 4 months, thats 3 troops a year with four troops to a sabre sqn you are going to get massive skill fade with a corresponding loss of Corps & Core SF skills in the following areas, Air, Boat, Mobility, & Mountain thats why Army advice to Govt was firm there would be no further deployment until those skill sets are back.
Nothing new there been ongoing since Korea.
As a Corporal I fully expect Tama to vent his rage but lets put it into perspective how long do you think the PM of the UK & Canada lasted attending there burials of there war dead?, I could not give a rats ar$e if he was there or not as long as our Commander In Chief representative was there is good enough for me, and yes Im a serving soldier of her Majesty Army.
They had a good day thats the nature of fighting a COIN operation 90% of our province has been pacified its only one small area that is causing concern but you wont hear about the rest of the province from the media.
We are down sizing our fleet to meet the same numbers of vehicle when we had M113A1, hopefully those NZLAVs will be altered to Ambo, Mortar, & C2 variants. Bushmaster might happen if they bid for the B vehicle fleet Rft in the near future.
Sadly Dave we should not be at this point where the Army's back would be so easily broken. It is distressing that the enforced and long lasting starvation diet has got to this. I fear that if even modest amounts of new money above what has already been earmarked is not injected within the next 5 years the budget moneyhawks will be keen to kill off core capabilities such as Arty which they have already had a go at in the past.
I cant agree with you more Mr C its got to the point where I do fear for Arty and im not alone, we currently are robbing Peter to pay Paul at the moment and we all know that the pain will get worse once our three big Ops finish next year, and just on the horizon is the B vehicle buy.
Not a good time being in Defence.
CD
I was under the impression that each NZSAS Squadron has 3 Troops and not 4. Has this changed?
Green Role been four troops for years,
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I know this sounds a little like a navy question but it kind of follows the NZSAS discussion.
Do NZ clearance diver teams have similar capabilities to Aus clearance divers teams or is that kind of stuff handled more by NZSAS?
Do NZ clearance diver teams have similar capabilities to Aus clearance divers teams or is that kind of stuff handled more by NZSAS?
kiwi in exile
Active Member
NZ herald has just announced (sorry-unable to post links yet) that 4 NZSAS troops will be deployed to afghanistan to gain inteligence on the IED makers for a "retribution" attack to be undertaken bu US SF
Interestingly the herald states that "they will not be combat troops".
wonder how they like that description.
Interestingly the herald states that "they will not be combat troops".
wonder how they like that description.
Yep it's been on the radio as well. Our great leader made the pronouncement this arvo. Seems we are having to rely upon US SF's for our utu. It should be the SAS doing the utu. They certainly have the motivation and skills, but as has been pointed out elsewhere we have to work with the US and NATO Special Forces even if our SAS were involved.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Lieutenant General Rhys Jones in NZ herald
http://http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10836247
Lieutenant General Rhys Jones has written an editorial in todays herald.
Doesn't really say anything new. Just talks about the LAVs in Afghanistan, and how good our infantry equipment is compared to our allies.
I wonder about the timing? Why write this now?
http://http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10836247
Lieutenant General Rhys Jones has written an editorial in todays herald.
Doesn't really say anything new. Just talks about the LAVs in Afghanistan, and how good our infantry equipment is compared to our allies.
I wonder about the timing? Why write this now?
This link will work Rhys Jones: Facing up to the reality of warfare - Opinion - NZ Herald News The comments also make interesting reading. From the reading of it he has confirmed the Endeavour replacement and Advanced Trainer for the RNZAF are next on the list, but interestingly doesn't mention the SH2G(I) Seasprite replacement for the SH2G(NZ) that are stuffed. I am wondering if it's a way of preparing the public for major defence acquisitions that leave the pollies at arms length in case the pollies change their minds.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Sorry about the poor link.
Yeah, it does sound like possibly good news.
The silence on the Seasprites is interesting. One way of seeing this is talking about replacing the seasprites suggests the ones we have are no good, which is bad PR.
Ditto, MRAPs. If NZDF anounced it was going to buy a fleet of MRAP's now it would look like they had sent our soldiers out poorly equiped, and then had lied about it.
I'm in favour of getting some bushmasters.
Yeah, it does sound like possibly good news.
The silence on the Seasprites is interesting. One way of seeing this is talking about replacing the seasprites suggests the ones we have are no good, which is bad PR.
Ditto, MRAPs. If NZDF anounced it was going to buy a fleet of MRAP's now it would look like they had sent our soldiers out poorly equiped, and then had lied about it.
I'm in favour of getting some bushmasters.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
NZ LAV criticisms
Someone (with a grudge?) has recently posted a series of videos on youtube outlining a whole lot of criticisms of NZs LAV evaluation/selection/purchase. I had no idea of all the scandals surrounding this. Army conspiring against the RNZAF. Blackmail against Ron Mark. There are links on youtube to NZ herald articles.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPopGFhw1s8&feature=relmfu"]The REAL Stryker! Chapter 17: History Lesson 2 --- the NZLAV (Part 4 of 4) - YouTube[/nomedia]
It was interesting to see that the BTR was an early contender, although the video states that the LAVs selection was a foregone conclusion, and the vehicle requirements were tailored to meet the LAV's specs.
This left me wondering:
Do we need a tracked vehicle for pacific ops? NZLAVs have limited mobility in their current deployments.
Has there been any progress finding someone to buy the 20 or so LAVs we were trying to sell.
Someone (with a grudge?) has recently posted a series of videos on youtube outlining a whole lot of criticisms of NZs LAV evaluation/selection/purchase. I had no idea of all the scandals surrounding this. Army conspiring against the RNZAF. Blackmail against Ron Mark. There are links on youtube to NZ herald articles.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPopGFhw1s8&feature=relmfu"]The REAL Stryker! Chapter 17: History Lesson 2 --- the NZLAV (Part 4 of 4) - YouTube[/nomedia]
It was interesting to see that the BTR was an early contender, although the video states that the LAVs selection was a foregone conclusion, and the vehicle requirements were tailored to meet the LAV's specs.
This left me wondering:
Do we need a tracked vehicle for pacific ops? NZLAVs have limited mobility in their current deployments.
Has there been any progress finding someone to buy the 20 or so LAVs we were trying to sell.
Whoever makes those videos is insane. In one of their other videos they refer to the Abrams as a "whoppertank" and its supporters as "whoppertanktards".
Sorry for the brief post but I'd be sorely tempted to discount completely the opinion of anyone inventing such childish terminology.
EDIT: Could this be a Sparky sighting, possibly?
Those who haven't heard of him, google combat reform, then be prepared to be dazzled by stupidity. It's like Air Power Australia, but dumber, even less qualified (!), and pertaining to the US Army.
Sorry for the brief post but I'd be sorely tempted to discount completely the opinion of anyone inventing such childish terminology.
EDIT: Could this be a Sparky sighting, possibly?
Those who haven't heard of him, google combat reform, then be prepared to be dazzled by stupidity. It's like Air Power Australia, but dumber, even less qualified (!), and pertaining to the US Army.